Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 14, 2011 10:30am-11:00am PDT

10:30 am
? i am a family member. >> you're not allowed to speak during public comment if you are a family member. you may speak during the rebuttal. >> thank you for your time. be able to speak later, >> if the of helen wants to give -- if the appellate wants to give you turn, you may speak. >> i am sorry. i did not know what the rules were. >> mr. kelly wants me to put this up. i would like the overhead please. i would like to talk about the loss of green space and
10:31 am
properties that used to be enjoyed by the neighborhood. the initial proposal showed the developer completely paving each lot. goothey have already moved a nur of beautiful trees. a total yards space is less than a yard space of any other single home during your -- any other single home. they claim that this is a mess, but this is the result of neglect by the correct owner. in this used to be a gorgeous and local treasure before
10:32 am
developers found it. they expected no one home to be added to rigger no one had any idea. but thank you. >> next speaker please. >> my name is robert. i have lived in the neighborhood for about 20 years. when the property originally came to sail, and there was a condition split along in two --
10:33 am
to split the yard in two. we have already put a stop sign up there. yes, there have been more people moving in, but my concern is about the safety of the area, and for those of us who wanted to move into san francisco, i just see these properties are going to change the character of the neighborhood. >> next speaker please.
10:34 am
>> my name is carmen. can you hear me? my family has lived here for almost 50 years, and i feel it would really be devastating to our residential neighborhood in terms of property values and quality of life. if the board of appeals allows the construction to go through on not only three houses but the building -- it is not within the confines of what we have now. it is not going to be in cohabitation with our neighborhood. as the not only for myself. i only recently found out they were talking about putting in a
10:35 am
multi-level home. i feel very disenfranchised by what they have decided. they are allowing a high-density development, and it is already overcrowded. what are we thinking? this is just not feasible in the neighborhood we are in. i request that you reconsider our appeal, and we are the people that vote. we are the people that come to city hall, and it is not in the best interest of our neighborhood for our city. >> you are talking about a multilevel apartment building? >> i am fairly new to this, so i
10:36 am
do not have detailed information, but my understanding is that it is going to been multilevel. even if the house were to stay like it is, it would become a multi level. >> the one that is there now? >> the one that is there. >> we will find out about that. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, we have a rebuttal time. are you doing that now and? >> do you have your wife's permission? >> there are three minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you for this opportunity. i would like to rebut a couple of things the and were sent to reagan -- that were said.
10:37 am
they have agreed to several aspects of it, but i am sorry they are not here to voice that for themselves. he never asked anyone for $10,000. goothe supervisors who voted in favor of this -- several of them were standing in the back of the chamber, and talking and joking when we presented our case, and the other ones enjoyed some rather generous funding from mr. gladstone and some of his clients, even to the point of enjoying fund-raisers held in his personal home, so that is all whole different issue, and one of the things that troubles me about access to the supervisors -- i believe it is
10:38 am
somewhere written that people have equal access to supervisors when they will come before them. they met at least 10 times. we were denied access to one of the supervisors. we got to meet with one for about 15 minutes. draw whatever conclusions you want from that. this is kind of our last hope. we hope that it is fair and just. the planning commission wants to see a lot of buildings. goothe supervisors may have an agenda, su. -- too. they want to build a lot of houses, which is great, but in our neighborhood, and what we would like to see is your consideration to uphold some of
10:39 am
the quality of life and we have in this neighborhood. the city wants to build tons of houses. that is great. we have park merced adding tens of thousands of residential units. our little neighborhood is rather special, and i would invite any of you to take a look at it. please consider the plight of the people who live there. just the people in this room represent almost 500 years of residency in that neighborhood who have paid taxes and supported the city. consider their needs as well as those of developers. thank you very kindly.
10:40 am
>> thank you, mr. gladstone. >> there are a lot of accusations, and this is not the time. i will talk about the case. first, i want to talk about what a great distance was enjoyed by the gentleman and his wife. there is 40 feet of distance between where people will be and their home. it used to be more than 40, but they recently added to the home. i only wish i had that kind of privacy. a lot sizes have been done through legal splits.
10:41 am
what was done was creation of as big of a lot as you can. if you are trying to get three lots, you do the largest u.kandu -- the largest you can. i also want to point out the comments are very interesting on this. the commissioners made some interesting points, and what they said was that they felt of the western side of the city should perhaps share the burden of the neighborhoods had in family size housing. a comment on how the east side gets the bulk of it, and it is a burden, but when the lots are
10:42 am
available and within the code, it should be welcome, and it should be considered a service provided by the neighborhood to accommodate. they also pointed out that they liked the design. commissioner more had one or two changes. liz taylor requested 5000 and 2000 as part of the settlement. i do not know where the other 3000 came from. i want to point out it is indeed a burden, but it is not easy to build family size housing. this will not be the most expensive common -- the most expensive, and i hope you will approve this. >> will you tell us what is happening with the house?
10:43 am
>> i talked to my client before. they have no current plans. the financing has not been worked out. lending is difficult. the main intent is to get going with the new homes, but they are thinking but the fact that a construction crew will be working on these three makes it possible that they will go for a permit to remodel home. they have no intention to remodel stockholm. region -- to remodel the home. if another person wants to do it, obviously, the person will need a lot split or at least a permit, and if any and additions are made to the home, certainly
10:44 am
of variants will be needed. does my client have a plan? know. does he know what needs to be done? no. i believe the chances of it being remodeled will increase once these lots go forward with construction. vice president garcia: does the planning department permit include the six -- the six trees? i am talking about what you intend to plant. >> i will ask the architect to handle that. vice president garcia: am i mistaken that i read somewhere that six new trees would be going in? is that part of the permit that was approved? could you change your mind after
10:45 am
this hearing and not planned those trees? >> sorry. that is part of the permit that has been approved by the planning department and dpw. vice president garcia: thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. just to clarify, the proposal is for three new single-family dwellings. each of the buildings will provide two off street parking spaces for the use of the residents. the existing building will remain as a single family dwelling. it is an rh-1 district. in the future, they may be able to subdivide the lot. but that would be through subdivision and demolition of the building. that would have to go through the section 317 process for loss
10:46 am
of a dwelling unit. i am not aware of plans for future development of the property at the corner. to clarify, i am available for any questions. vice president garcia: i am confused. it seems mr. gladstone said there would be two new curb cuts, three houses, three garages. >> there is actually a net gain. there would be three of street parking spaces with three curb cuts required. that would provide two off- street parking spaces each. the current plan would probably result in removal of one off- street parking space. we are looking at a net gain in each case of one additional parking space. vice president garcia: thank
10:47 am
you. president goh: i am sorry. your time has expired. if commissioners have questions for you, they can call you up again. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president goh: comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i would offer a little historical perspective, as i have been known to do. when i was at planning, the first residential district that had a residential design guidelines accepted was west would park, which is not far from here. that height limit was 28 feet.
10:48 am
it went from 40 to 28. merrill loma park -- miraloma park wanted to adopt the exact same guidelines as set for western park. it never came to fruition, but if you look at this project, which is 22 feet and, i guess the attitude related to height has changed. i will continue and add my comments on my take of this particular project. i think the project is contextual in scale and in terms of design. i think it is totally suitable for the size lots that are there. vice president garcia: i guess my comments would have to do
10:49 am
with the fact that, first of all, i am very familiar with this neighborhood. i do not live far away. but i took umbrage at the fact that -- i did not know who it was when i read the brief. i have just learned it was commissioners moore, olague, and sugaya, who said that the western neighborhoods had given their pound of flesh to housing and so the eastern side should now do so. the permit holder was talking about the fact that the appellants were nostalgic for some suburban feel to their area. first of all, the word nostalgic, when it originally entered the lexicon -- it was psycho pathological -- psycho-
10:50 am
pathological. it had to do with home sickness that was pathological. it has been softened to mean appreciate -- appreciation for the past. both comments go to the issue of neighborhood character. to me, that is what the planning process is all about -- preserving neighborhood character. you are going to be disappointed with where i go with this. so i think that the commissioners, if they stated that they thought this project should go through because it would balance the scales of density to another part of the city -- i think that is entirely the wrong reason to have approved a project. i am going to assume, not having seen the staff report from planning, that the reason they approved it had to do with the same comments mr. sanchez made
10:51 am
here tonight, the same comments that were made by commissioner fung. it is contextual. it is consistent with that particular neighborhood. it is an infill. it is going to in moderately increase the density there. -- immoderately increase the density. it is consistent with residential design guidelines. despite what i consider unfortunate comments having to do with the fact that this neighborhood wants to preserve the character -- that is what i think most neighborhoods want to do. i think this is consistent and will preserve the character of that neighborhood, and i intend to uphold the permit. commissioner peterson: i also live on the west side and value
10:52 am
the single-family sensibility and neighborhood character we have there. in fact, when i first read the briefs i thought was -- what was at issue was a big multi- level building. i was pleased to find these were single-family dwellings. maybe they are smaller, which makes them more affordable. they have parking. we need affordable homes. i think these are family friendly. we need families in san francisco. i see nothing technically wrong with the permits themselves. i also would uphold this permit. president goh: i agree with what has been said. is there a motion? commissioner fung: i move to uphold the permits. >> to uphold all three permits? on that motion. to deny all three appeals and uphold all three permits.
10:53 am
president goh: aye. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> commissioner hwang is absent. the vote is 4-0. >> welcome back to the june 8, 2011 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are calling item 10, thomas ballinger versus the zoning administrator, protesting the granting to kelly kryc up a lot variants adjusting a property
10:54 am
line between two single-family homes to follow an existing were defense -- existing wood fence. mr. ballinger, you have seven minutes. >> i am a resident at 285 mullen avenue, across the street from the lots in question. i was unable to attend the variance hearing. i sent a letter with my objections to that hearing. i believe the variance was granted without attention to the demerits of redrawing these property lines. these small buildings across the street from me were formally outbuildings of a larger victorian house that were split off from the property about 25
10:55 am
years ago. they were evidently garages, because there are three curb cuts that remain, facing the two buildings. perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, they were converted into small residences and have been taken care of and rented out for all the years i have been there, which is 35 years. the proposal to redraw the lot lines makes sense for the new owners. they have a common agreement and can separate their property and enjoy the full use of separate properties. i am not completely opposed to this idea. but i am afraid that allowing this to go through without any restrictions will let these very small lots develop into large, buildable properties, which has
10:56 am
a lot of problems for the neighborhood, which is already very congested, full of small houses. one of the points i want to make is these will be the two smallest lots in the area. this has been a point of debate in the briefs you have read. the project sponsor has provided a list in their brief of the four lots they believe are smaller. three of those have in fact been combined with adjacent lots to make one buildable area. effectively, these lots no longer exist. they have been built over with larger structures. the only small lot is 810 feet. it is the access point for a drive that belongs to the
10:57 am
adjacent house. they retain a small lot to give them the use of the city and access to their house. these will be, if the variants -- variance is approved, the smallest lots in the area. the other contention is the off street parking space will be removed. in fact, the parking space has been compromised already by the creation of the fence to show where the new property line would be. until three years ago, that fence did not exist. that driveway was still marked by a curb cut, by double opening doors wide enough to permit a car, and was able to permit off street parking. the property line proposed in the variance would no longer allow that because the fence has been built in the middle of that
10:58 am
parking space. in addition, there was a serious flaw with the notification process in the neighborhood. the notification as posted said the property was rh-2. that is incorrect. it is rh-1. this was corrected less than four days before the hearing, and no re-mailing occurred to the neighborhood that this was in fact an rh-1 property. finally, i am not opposed entirely to allowing the owners of this land to have rights to maintain and keep up their houses. but to imagine that they could build a 35 foot tall structure
10:59 am
on a less than 1,100 foot lot is completely odious. the opportunity that has been given them has been to build in the backyard of another lot, which should have been an open space offering several buildings. i urge you to accept this appeal and if not deny out right the variance, place further restrictions on the ability of the property owners to enlarge their building size. thank you. >> thank you. ms. kryc. >> i am going to use the overhead. commissioners, thank you for your time. i am kelly kryc.